Migration package acceptance barred reopening pre-migration licence disputes and sustained limited interest and penal interest on dues.

Unconditional acceptance of a migration package barred the appellant from reopening disputes over pre-migration subscriber computation, because a party cannot retain package benefits while rejecting its burdens. Interest on unpaid licence fee was recoverable only to the limited extent accepted in the Tribunal's reasoning for the earlier unpaid period, while the clause on per-subscriber licence fee did not permit downward revision based on a reduction in unit call rate and, in any event, no supporting evidence was shown. Penal interest on overdue licence dues was also upheld, with simple interest serving as the enforcement mechanism for default.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the methodology adopted for arriving at the number of subscribers from the fourth year of the licence agreement was valid in view of the appellant's acceptance of the migration package; (ii) whether interest could be charged on the licence fee demanded for the unpaid period; (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of reduction in the unit call rate for calculating the per-subscriber licence fee; (iv) whether penal interest could be levied on the licence fee till actual payment.

Issue (i): Whether the methodology adopted for arriving at the number of subscribers from the fourth year of the licence agreement was valid in view of the appellant's acceptance of the migration package.

Analysis: The appellant had unconditionally accepted the migration package and agreed that no dispute relating to the licence agreement for the period up to 31 July 1999 would be raised thereafter. In such circumstances, it was not open to the appellant to challenge the pre-migration computation of subscribers. A party cannot accept the benefits of a package while rejecting the burdens attached to it.

Conclusion: The methodology was upheld and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether interest could be charged on the licence fee demanded for the unpaid period.

Analysis: The Tribunal had granted relief by holding that interest could be recovered only in respect of the earlier unpaid amounts up to July 1999 and that the respondents could not simultaneously recover advance quarterly licence fee and revenue-sharing fee for the same period under the migration package. That view was not challenged by the respondents and stood accepted.

Conclusion: Interest was held recoverable only to the limited extent recognised by the Tribunal, and the issue was decided in favour of the appellant in part.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of reduction in the unit call rate for calculating the per-subscriber licence fee.

Analysis: The relevant clause contemplated revision of the per-subscriber licence fee only in relation to an increase in the unit call rate. The wording of the clause did not support downward revision. In any event, the appellant had led no evidence to support the claim and the dispute related to the pre-migration period, which had already been waived.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of reduction in the unit call rate.

Issue (iv): Whether penal interest could be levied on the licence fee till actual payment.

Analysis: The respondents were entitled to recover outstanding licence dues together with interest for the period of default. The stipulated deadline could be enforced by charging simple interest on overdue amounts instead of terminating the licence for default.

Conclusion: Levy of penal interest was sustained and the issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tribunal's order failed in substance because the appellant, having unconditionally accepted the migration package, could not reopen disputes relating to the pre-migration period, and the remaining monetary claims were substantially upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that unconditionally accepts a package or transaction carrying both benefits and burdens cannot thereafter challenge the burdens while retaining the benefits, and disputes expressly waived by such acceptance cannot be reopened.

---